M/S.Aditya Aluminium vs The Presiding Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 8976 Ori

            ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K
                           W.P.(C) NO.8253 OF 2023

     In the matter of application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
                                         India.

M/s.Aditya Aluminium, Lapanga                                 : Petitioner

                                       -Versus-

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Sambalpur & anr.                                              : Opp. Parties


         For Petitioner           :    M/s.S.S.Tripathy, D.Pradhan,
                                       G.S.Das, S.K.Banta & P.Sethy

         For O.P.2                :    M/s.R.N.Debata, P.Panigrahi,
                                       B.Sahu, P.Debata & C.K.Panda

                                       JUDGMENT

CORAM :

JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO

Date of hearing & Judgment : 10.08.2023

1. The Writ Petition involves the following prayer :-

"It is, in the above facts and circumstances, humbly prayed that Your Lordship may be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition, issue notice to the Opp.Parties, call for the records of I.D. Case No.3 of 2022 from the learned Labour Court/Opp.Party No.1 and after hearing the parties be pleased to set aside the order dtd.2.12.2022 (Annexure-1) and order dtd.2.3.2023 (Annexure-2) passed by learned Labour Court/Opp.Party No.1 in ID Case No.3 of 2022.

// 2 //

And may pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the fact and circumstances of the case.."

2. Taking this Court to the factual position, it is stated that on

initiation of an industrial adjudication, vide I.D.Case No.3/2022, the

Management, Petitioner herein on its appearance has raised the

question of maintainability of the I.D. Case keeping in view the

beneficial provision through the Certified Standing Orders supporting

the case of both sides in making available of an intra-Appeal provision

involving the action involved therein. It is considering such an

objection, there has been a decision on such objection and decided,

vide the impugned order but against the Management-Petitioner

holding that the question raised therein is a mixed question of fact and

law resulting in filing of the Writ Petition.

3. On receipt of notice on the statement of claim, it appears, the

Management-Petitioner at the threshold challenged the maintainability

of the dispute itself. Taking this Court to the Petition raising the

industrial dispute along with notice of the Labour Court, vide

Annexure-3, the relief sought for therein vis-à-vis prayer and further

the provision in the Certified Standing Orders binding on both sides,

Mr.S.S.Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner brings to the notice

of the Court to the ground raised in the application questioning the

maintainability of the industrial adjudication raised in I.D. Case No.3

// 3 //

of 2022 and makes an attempt to satisfy the Court that the question

raised since is directly falling through the provision in the Certified

Standing Orders of Aditya Aluminium, a decision could have been

taken purely treating the issue involving a question of law. Taking this

Court to the observations, it is contended, the Labour Court

misdirected itself and gave an erroneous finding in the rejection of the

application questioning the maintainability of the proceeding on the

premises that there involves mixed question of fact and law. Learned

counsel for the Petitioner also taking this Court through the provision

in the Certified Standing Orders attempted to satisfy that there is no

involvement of fact while taking such a decision.

4. Mr.R.Debata, learned counsel for the Workman-O.P.2

attending through the Virtual Court proceeding at Sambalpur Centre

taking this Court to the objection of the Workman to the application

questioning maintainability of the I.D. proceeding, grounds therein

while not disputing the provision at Clause-26 of the Certified Standing

Orders of Aditya Aluminium having a clear intra-Appeal provision but

however taking to the other pleas taken therein in the objection of the

Workman, contended, the Workman contested the proceeding on the

premises of the issue involving the question of fact and law. Taking

this Court to the discussions by the Labour Court in the impugned

// 4 //

order, Mr.Debata attempted to satisfy the Court that there has been

lawful observation and there is no need for interfering in the impugned

order.

5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the

Parties and the objection taken herein and in course of hearing, this

Court has gone through the provision at Order 26 of the Certified

Standing Orders of Aditya Aluminium further also reading together

with the provision at Order 25 therein. On perusal of both the orders,

this Court finds, the Management may be justified in bringing such a

serious question of law. For a justified decision required to be taken by

the Labour Court, this Court is not delving into answering on such

issue at this stage and leaving it open for a justified decision by Labour

Court itself but after entering into further argument from both sides.

6. For the nature of dispute, there is no requirement of going or

adverting through the facts involving the dispute. A decision can very

well be taken simply going through the provision referred therein in the

Certified Standing Orders. It is at this stage of the matter, this Court

going through the discussions and observations finds, there has been

mechanical consideration of the legal aspect involved herein. While

declaring the decision unwarranted and in disapproval of the decision

involved herein, this Court interfering with the impugned order at

// 5 //

Annexure-1 and the consequential order at Annexure-2 sets aside both.

The matter is remitted to the Labour Court, Sambalpur for re-

adjudication the question raised in the application of the Petitioner at

Annexure-3 herein after involving fresh argument of the Counsel

appearing for both sides and taking into consideration the legal

provision through the provisions in the Certified Standing Orders of

Aditya Aluminium.

7. Since the matter is remitted for re-consideration of the

Labour Court, both the Management and the Workman are directed to

appear before the Labour Court, Sambalpur either in person or through

their representatives on 25th August, 2023 along with copy of this

judgment. Decision on the question of maintainability should also be

taken at least within a period of two months from the date of

appearance of the Parties.

8. The Writ Petition succeeds to the extent indicated herein

above. There is no order as to cost.

                                                                  (Biswanath Rath)
                                                                       Judge


                                                                    (M.S.Sahoo)
Signature Not Verified                                                 Judge
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANOJ KUMAR ROUT
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court ofOrissa
                        OrissaHigh Court, Cuttack.

The 10th August, 2023/M.K.Rout, A.R.-cum-Sr.Secy. Date: 14-Aug-2023 15:03:38